Frank

I have been reading an interesting book, TO PREACH OR NOT TO PREACH: THE CHURCH’S URGENT QUESTION, which challenges the centrality and authority of the “one man pulpit.” Throughout this book the author, David C. Norrington, demonstrates the following four points:

1. Today’s custom of making the sermon the “main attraction” of weekly gatherings has no clear NT support nor was it the norm for church gatherings of the first two centuries, which he amply verifies from both the NT and the writings of the Apostolic Fathers.

2. The regular weekly sermon did not become such a featured part of church life until about the third century–along with other non-biblical practices, such as the acquistion of elaborate buildings, and the adoption of hierarchical forms of leadership modeled on Greco-Roman institutions, resulting in the suppression and elimination of the “one another ministires” of 1 Cor. 12-14 by the mid-fourth century.

3. The NT paradigm was community oriented with a mutual effort to develop and exercise everyone’s gifts and skills–most of such group life taking place in house churches without the benefit, or distraction, of an ordained, professional clergy.

4. The traditional “sermon,” because it doesn’t allow interaction between the preacher and the congregation by means of questions and answers, is actually a poor teaching method and does little to foster spiritual growth among God’s people.

And he has some interesting things to say about mutual submission of the leaders to the congregation, as well as of the congregation to the leaders. I quote in part:

In some cases leaders were likely to defer to others:
1. Not all elders taught (1 Tim. 5:17). Where a plurality of elders existed, any non-teaching elder(s) present would submit to the authority of the teaching elder(s) in the area of teaching–or even to the authority of a teacher who was not an elder, if such existed.
2. Leaders would be required to acknowledge the gifts of others in their congregations and respond appropriately those gifts when exercised. For example, Earle E. Ellis suggests that “…the role of the prophet may overlap that of the elder as it does that of the apostle and the teacher, especially in certain teaching functions” (Cf. “The Role of the Christian Prophet in Acts,” APOSTOLIC HISTORY AND THE GOSPEL, p. 66).
3. Leaders were required to defer to the authority of their wives on occasions (1 Cor. 7:4).
4. Elders might have to answer to criticisms brought by members of the congregation (1 Tim. 5:19).
It is thus clear that submission and obedience to leaders in the New Testament is not absolute (Cf. TO PREACH OR NOT TO PREACH, pp. 53-54).

For those who hold the centrality and authority of the “one man pulpit” for congregational worship and ministry, this a very challenging book indeed.